Stumble it!Blogs for Killing Muslims
posted in Blogs4Bush by themaiden |Somalia is without a doubt a place that desperately needs help. Not surprisingly, they aren’t getting it from us. As Noonan notes, “Right now, we’ve got our hands full in Iraq and with Iran, etc”. Right. Right now we are bogged down in flashy but pointless conflicts– one of them tremendously costly and the other both of them foolish beyond belief. But that isn’t the subject of this essay. The subject is the bigotry. Mark “can’t seem to spell African countries” Noonan is lamenting the fact that we can’t go kill the damned Muslims.
Everytime I think that he cannot get more shrill– dare I say, “insane”?– he proves me wrong.
To nutshell it, Ethiopian troops have pushed into Somalia in an attempt to destroy Islamo-fascists who, aside from their usual criminal activities, are also fanning separatist flames inside Etheiopia(sic).
Somalia is currently controlled, to the extent that it is controlled at all (Mark correctly notes that Somalia more nearly resembles anarchy than anything else), by a loose system of Islamic Courts and local tribal leaders– otherwise known as warlords, otherwise known as thugs, otherwise known as the bullies our wise leadership saw fit to support, thus giving the people of Somalia cause to support the Islamic Courts. Whatever else the Islamic Courts may be, they do make up a significant part of the only government that exists in Somalia, and the Islamic Courts may well be the good part of that limited government. From the same article Mark uses as his source:
Ethiopia and the United States have accused the Courts movement of harboring terrorists, a charge the organization has denied. Opposition groups in Ethiopia have said Meles, who supplies intelligence to the United States on Somalia, has exaggerated the terrorism claim to win U.S. support as his increasingly authoritarian government stands accused of human rights violations.
The United States and Ethiopia have been of one mind that a complete takeover of Somalia by the Islamic Courts is unacceptable, because of fears that the country could become a base for Muslim extremists.
Yet U.S. policy in Somalia has been widely criticized for having the opposite of its intended effect, often encouraging the expansion of the Courts movement.
This year, the United States supported warlords who called themselves an “anti-terrorism” coalition. The warlords generally bribed and terrorized ordinary Somalis, who came to despise them. The Islamic Courts came to power as an alternative to the hated warlords, establishing order based on Islamic law village by village and earning widespread support from beleaguered Somalis tired of 15 years of near-anarchy.
So, let’s see. The increasingly authoritarian Ethiopian government fed the US government less than accurate intelligence (hmmm… odd…) about Somalia’s Islamic Court system– which came into power as a result of the US backing of thug militias– in order to justify its own expansionist agenda into Somalia. (Ethiopia, of course, denies having an agenda, but let’s see how long it takes them the leave the country.) Ethiopia, with its invasion now masked in the terrorist related buzzwords of the day, marched into foreign territory. Why? Well… they were afraid that the Somalians might one day do something bad. Apparently, its leadership has learned much from the US. Lie, label, attack.
It isn’t hard to figure out that I have no fond opinion of religion of any flavor, and it ought to be equally apparent that I do not advocate mixing religion and government– including the mixing of Christianity and US Government that Mark, based upon clues dropped in his voluminous writing at Blogs For Bush, seems to support (should I call that Christiano-fascism?)– but that isn’t the subject of this essay.
The subject has something to do with the idea of freedom, I suppose. I can’t very well advocate freedom if I do not also accept that a people may choose a government that I would not. I cannot advocate freedom if I deny a people the right to establish a government of its own chosing, not mine.
… it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
And the Somalis seem to have selected the UIC, even if not by vote.
More importantly, I think, the subject is the frightening tendency of people in this country, and apparently in other countries as well, to spit labels at people and then use those labels to justify shooting them. This labeling is a time tested and well worn tool of the propagandists, and, historically, it leads to nothing but atrocity. What else could the blatant demonizing of a people lead to? That is what is scraping at my nerves about Noonan’s article. The phrase “islamo-fascism” is a war cry. It is a cry for blood. It is a phrase intended to inflame. It is meant to inspire anger, even rage, toward a third of the world.
“No,” objects a bystander. “‘Islamo-fascism’ only applies to Muslims who are fascists, not to all muslims.”
Hmmm… then “stingy Jew” only applies to Jews who are stingy? I don’t think so. Such phrases are blanket slander.
I don’t support the UIC– the Islamic Courts– but make a case against them. Argue the case. Argue the case in court, in print. Win with reason, with analysis. Verbal tar and feathering is nothing but an attempt to hijack minds. It might work. The hijacker might manage a substantial conversion of the population, but the converts are deranged. The converts are basing their decisions on distorted information and reasoning with distorted modes of logic. Nothing good will come of such circumstances.
– finis … well, maybe.
Popularity: 1%
